The Truth....according to who?
You mean you?
Obviously if the defense and prosecution were arguing over whether gun charges against Rittenhouse ought to be stayed or dropped based upon a vaguely worded statute, the definition of what constituted an allowable fire arm had not been settled yet. So Judge Schroeder determined that it was legal for a 16 year old to carry an AR-15. But as one article stated, another judge on the appellate court could have overruled Schroeder. But Schroeder coyly said 'my bad' and himself even acknowledged that it was a vaguely worded statute and prior to the trial it was no clear whether a minor could legally carry an AR-15 around.
So in actuality your talking out of your asshole as usual Prowler.
Another Wisconsin judge could have ruled otherwise.
The Truth, Joe, does not bend.
The Truth does not rely on a democratic process.
The Truth will never come to you, Joe.
You need to come to
The Truth.
I showed you the errors in your understanding. You do not seem to be able to process it.
His comment
"my bad" was not about the statute regarding the legality of guns. It was regarding a statute concerning the allowance of motions at different stages of a trial.
When I type, I know that you will not understand.
However the legality of age for Rittenhouse to carry the AR15 had not clearly been established until the trial under Wisconsin law, ya doofus.
Otherwise the prosecution and Defense wouldn't have been arguing about it
Nobody was clear on that statute.
And the prosecution could have asked an appellate court to clarify that point in which case it might have been possible that had they decided the AR15 did not fit the definition of an allowable weapon the outcome of the trial could have been different Prowler
Joe.....it was clear. That's why it was dropped.
And yeah they argue about stuff. The charges themselves were purely political.
2 men are shot dead by Rittenhouse so it was purely political and didn't warrant a trial?!
Are you kidding me?
It was very clearly self defense. Everything on video. So he shouldnt have been arrested.
NORMALLY when it's an obvious self defense case, they investigate it and close it with no arrests and no trial.
This was entirely maliscious politically motivated prosecution.
You need to spend some time understanding state laws on self defense and looking at cases where self defense was found by proper investigations and how that goes.
The Truth....according to who?
You mean you?
Obviously if the defense and prosecution were arguing over whether gun charges against Rittenhouse ought to be stayed or dropped based upon a vaguely worded statute, the definition of what constituted an allowable fire arm had not been settled yet. So Judge Schroeder determined that it was legal for a 16 year old to carry an AR-15. But as one article stated, another judge on the appellate court could have overruled Schroeder. But Schroeder coyly said 'my bad' and himself even acknowledged that it was a vaguely worded statute and prior to the trial it was no clear whether a minor could legally carry an AR-15 around.
So in actuality your talking out of your asshole as usual Prowler.
Another Wisconsin judge could have ruled otherwise.
The Truth, Joe, does not bend.
The Truth does not rely on a democratic process.
The Truth will never come to you, Joe.
You need to come to
The Truth.
I showed you the errors in your understanding. You do not seem to be able to process it.
His comment
"my bad" was not about the statute regarding the legality of guns. It was regarding a statute concerning the allowance of motions at different stages of a trial.
When I type, I know that you will not understand.
However the legality of age for Rittenhouse to carry the AR15 had not clearly been established until the trial under Wisconsin law, ya doofus.
Otherwise the prosecution and Defense wouldn't have been arguing about it
Nobody was clear on that statute.
And the prosecution could have asked an appellate court to clarify that point in which case it might have been possible that had they decided the AR15 did not fit the definition of an allowable weapon the outcome of the trial could have been different Prowler
Joe.....it was clear. That's why it was dropped.
And yeah they argue about stuff. The charges themselves were purely political.
2 men are shot dead by Rittenhouse so it was purely political and didn't warrant a trial?!
Are you kidding me?
It was very clearly self defense. Everything on video. So he shouldnt have been arrested.
NORMALLY when it's an obvious self defense case, they investigate it and close it with no arrests and no trial.
This was entirely maliscious politically motivated prosecution.
You need to spend some time understanding state laws on self defense and looking at cases where self defense was found by proper investigations and how that goes.
But whether or not one sides with Rittenhouse is besides the point.
People were killed and it still had to be determined who was guilty or innocent & Right or wrong.
So logically there had to be a trial and yes it was necessary
Wouldn't you at least agree on that much?
These people who say "oh poor liddell Kyle. He shouldnt face a trial cuz I don't like and I say so!"
...like if there's no trial after 3 people are killed then a person may as well be living in a communist dictatorship.
That's what happens in those places. Someone gets murdered they mop up the blood and nobody talks about it the next day.
Or people disappear in the middle of the night no questions asked.
...is that the kind of due process want?
Joe it isnt about siding with Rittenhouse. It's about siding with the constitution and the law.
I dont care how bad you want to think this is some brand new thing. Normally when cases that are this obvious case of self defense? There is no trial at all. No arrests. It gets investigated, its found to be self defense and everyone moves on.
Not every single death has a trial. And yes we have due process. The charges against Kyle were maliscious and politically motivated and cases this obvious never even see a court room.
Due process involves a complete investigation. Then police and prosecutors decide if it's a homicide, or a manslaughter.....or self defense. And they rule and charge accordingly. This was an obvious case of self defense and never should have involved charges and a trial.
And Kyle's Law is being presented to stop politically motivated maliscious prosecutions.
There is a reason we do things like this. It's so people get their due process. Their rights protected. And they arent denied true humane justice over peoples feelings.
You guys keep looking for reasons to blame Kyle for the actions of other grown men that justify them attacking HIM. And that's not justice. That's bias bullshit and it shouldnt even be tolerated. Another person's life shouldnt depend on how people feel about them. It's the same as blaming rape survivors because they "provoked" him so shes partly at fault too. That's not how it works.
The law should favor the innocent. Every rioter there that night knows the law. They chose to break it. The consequences are either jail or a citizen they CHOSE to attack defending themselves.
